What Does the Iran Deal Mean for Syria?

A historic something has just happened. In a deal struck in Vienna, the government of Iran has agreed that “under no circumstances will Iran ever seek, develop or acquire any nuclear weapons.” In return, most international sanctions on Iran will gradually be lifted.

For U.S. President Barack Obama, this may be the crowning foreign policy achievement of his presidency. “Today after two years of negotiations, the United States, together with our international partners, has achieved something that decades of animosity has not: a comprehensive long-term deal with Iran that will prevent it from obtaining a nuclear weapon,” the president said in a speech after the agreement was signed.

The White House calls the Vienna agreement a “historic deal” and historic certainly seems to be the adjective du jour—on all sides of the debate. For example, the European Union High Representative Federica Mogherini labeled July 14 a “historic day” and U.K. Foreign Secretary Philip Hammond celebrated it as a “historic agreement,” while Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif preferred the term “historic moment.”

Taking the opposite view, Israeli Prime Minister (and Foreign Minister) Benjamin Netanyahu considered it a “historic mistake.” Other Israeli politicians chimed in with similar denunciations, such as Deputy Foreign Minister Tzipi Hotovely, who called the deal a “historic surrender.” But Israel’s hard-line Minister of Education Naftali Bennet mixed up the vowels and had a hysteric reaction instead, warning that Iran’s next step may be to annihilate London and New York.

Will Assad Get More Guns?

Russia and China are now both angling to get into the Iranian arms market, which is sure to swell once oil money starts flooding back into government coffers in Tehran. Some commentators have estimated that Russia could be looking at $13 billion in arms export earnings and no one will be shocked to learn that the Kremlin has been pushing to lift arms sanctions immediately after an agreement.

The Iranian arms trade matters a great deal to Syria. While Khamenei’s top priority is of course to improve Iran’s own defenses, recent years have proved that Iran sees its own security as inextricably tied to the network of regional allies and proxies it has cultivated in Syria, Iraq, and Lebanon over the past decades. These allies include Assad and several Syrian pro-government militias, but also the Lebanese Shia faction Hezbollah and Iraqi Shia militias that fight in both Iraq and Syria. Having spent billions in support of its regional allies even as its economy suffered from crushing international sanctions, Iran isn’t likely to hold back now.

Iran, on the other hand, has been eager to play up the benefits of a deal for its allies, with its negotiators recently telling the media that an agreement would allow Tehran to “continue supplying defensive weapons to its regional allies to fight against terrorism and extremism.” That’s not likely to be the U.S. view—but the key word here is “continue.” For years already, the Iranian government has been flouting sanctions by transferring arms and military expertise to Assad’s army and its other regional allies. Sanctions may have prompted a certain degree of discretion, but they have hardly affected the trade itself. What they may have done is make purchases more costly and prevent Iran from acquiring certain top-of-the-line products for its allies.

Will that change now?

According to President Obama’s description of the deal, arms sanctions will not be lifted immediately. Instead, they will be phased out gradually as Iranian compliance is monitored over several years. “Iran must abide by the deal before additional sanctions are lifted,” the president said in his White House address, “including five years for restrictions related to arms, and eight years for restrictions related to ballistic missiles.”

Moscow’s Missile Deliveries

Still, in some ways, Iran’s military is already benefitting from the deal. In April, Russian President Vladimir Putin pointed to progress in the nuclear talks as his reason for lifting a ban on sales of the S-300, a powerful air defense system long sought by the Iranians as a means of offsetting Israeli and American air superiority.

Simultaneously supporting Assad, Hezbollah, the Iraqi government, and various Kurdish, Palestinian, and other allies is an exceedingly costly project for Iran. In particular, Syria has emerged since 2011 as a bottomless pit into which Iran is shoveling its own hard-earned oil and taxpayer money by the billions. During the past few years of sanctions-induced economic distress, many ordinary Iranians seem to have begun grumbling over these costs. That’s why financial and oil sanctions relief matter so much to Assad. More money for Iran means more money for Syria, or at least less Iranian domestic pressure to trim the current level of funding.

And with wealth comes flattery. Iranian markets will now open up again after the lean years of the sanctions regime, and the government will have cash on hand to order in big infrastructure restoration projects. Many current and former trading partners (surely including some EU members) can be counted on to soften their objections to Iranian regional policies if that’s what it takes to get a piece of the pie. It is possible, indeed quite likely, that this could help Iran promote its own understanding of the Syrian war.

Assad clearly hopes that it will, lauding the Vienna deal as a “fundamental turning point” in Iranian relations with the rest of the world.

Will the Deal Change Iran?

In the conspiratorial world of Syrian politics, speculation is rife about secret “Syria clauses” in the deal. The opposition fears an under-the-table deal benefiting Iran and Assad, while government supporters are afraid that Iran will now move to improve its relations with the West by sacrificing Assad. Neither seems very likely and negotiators are probably correct when they claim that the Vienna process focused exclusively on the nuclear issue. But it is no secret that there are those on both sides who would like to see a more comprehensive rapprochement, or at least improved coordination in the struggle against the extremists of the self-proclaimed Islamic State.

With the nuclear deal now signed and perhaps secure, there is suddenly room for new talks to begin. Or if they are already secretly under way, such parallel diplomatic tracks can be accelerated without fear of upsetting the nuclear talks. Whatever happens, Iraq and Syria will be top concerns for all involved, although the former may make for more fruitful discussions than the latter.

In pushing so hard for the nuclear deal, Barack Obama has seemingly wagered that some combination of trade and talks will be more successful at incentivizing U.S.-friendly Iranian politics than the isolation and military threats of the past decades. Whether he is right or wrong, it is not an unreasonable assumption. For Assad, too, today’s celebration must therefore be tinged with quiet concern over how an improvement in Iranian-Western relations might affect Tehran’s political priorities in coming years. A historic achievement this may well have been, but history has a way of unfolding at its own pace and in its own ways.

It's not about Assad or any other president but iran and russia know very well what happens if a country collapses. We've seen this in lybia and I think even the USofA learned that this isn't desirable. But it's also not easy to replace a countrys public order when people never saw anything else. This must be a slow but steady progress. And because a state is weak during this phase it's essential to have strong allies who stand by your side.

Post your comments 2500 character limit. No links or markup permitted. Comments are moderated and may not appear immediately. Screen names appear with your comment.

Screen Name

Follow the conversation—Sign up to receive email updates when comments are posted to this article.

Email Address

Characters Used 0

jdonnell

July 15, 20159:11 am

Another anti-peace article from a site supposedly devoted to peace-making but more interested in supporting a US war-supporting policy. Assad, by all counts, remains popular with a majority of Syrians, but the US supports an anti-democratic agenda for Syria. This may suit the Israeli (and PNAC-inspired) view, but it does not support democracy or justice.

Post your comments 2500 character limit. No links or markup permitted. Comments are moderated and may not appear immediately. Screen names appear with your comment.

Screen Name

Follow the conversation—Sign up to receive email updates when comments are posted to this article.

Email Address

Characters Used 0

virgile

July 20, 20155:44 am

The opposition has lost the war after 4 years, it has been supplanted by Islamists that no one wants. It is so desperate that it is now begging the UN for a speedy resolution, after retracting all of its "pre-conditions". Without a stop to the war, it will have no place in the future of Syria. The Iran deal is giving it the final blow.

Post your comments 2500 character limit. No links or markup permitted. Comments are moderated and may not appear immediately. Screen names appear with your comment.

Screen Name

Follow the conversation—Sign up to receive email updates when comments are posted to this article.

Email Address

Characters Used 0

4change

August 02, 201510:58 pm

The recent triumph of diplomacy leading to the ‘Iran Deal’, the landmark agreement that will ensure limits on Tehran’s nuclear activities, presents a unique opportunity to push diplomacy even further.
Indeed, what is now crucial is that Iran and Saudi Arabia are coaxed—and supported—into coming together for a ‘Grand Discourse on the Middle East.’ Such a dialogue would require the most ambitious of diplomatic efforts and the utmost creativity of those leading it. Yet, diplomacy is indispensable. For as daunting as the challenge may appear, the daily news reporting and TV pictures of the Syrian conflict make the point that such a move is essential and that the time for a brave new initiative is now.
The stakes for inaction are high, not only in humanitarian terms. IS is already filling the power vacuum that war has brought about within Syria and Iraq. State building-like features have been reported, with availability of public services in IS controlled areas, as opposed to the dire situation experienced in Opposition held territories. The persistent presence of IS has, and will do nothing but increase the risks of polarizing communities along religious and ethnic lines.
On the table must be a debate on the proxy wars ravaging Syria and Iraq, as well as Yemen. Key topics should include security guarantees for borders, prohibitions of weapons of mass destruction, and strategies for dealing with the common enemy - IS. More positively, and in a spirit of opportunism, new and innovative ways of collaboration aiming at economic and trade deals beneficial to both must also be on the agenda.
If diplomacy is given the chance to work in ending proxy wars, the chance of a sustainable peace in Syria, and in even the wider Middle East, increases substantially. That is enough of an objective to try. And now is the time. The nuclear deal with Iran shows that even formidable obstacles can be overcome with diplomacy. Furthermore, the mix of opportunities and uncertainties, which that very agreement breaks open, is a good base for a strategic follow-up.
The four million Syrian refugees in Turkey, Lebanon and elsewhere, as well as the untold number of those displaced inside Syria demand nothing less.

Comment Policy

Comments that include profanity, personal attacks, or other inappropriate material will be removed. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, steps will be taken to block users who violate any of the posting standards, terms of use, privacy policies, or any other policies governing this site. You are fully responsible for the content that you post.